| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway |
| Date: | 2022-11-22 18:44:25 |
| Message-ID: | 3479601.1669142665@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Still wondering if there's really no CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPT anywhere
> else in this loop.
I did some experimentation using the test case Jakub presented
to start with, and verified that that loop does respond promptly
to control-C even in HEAD. So there are CFI(s) in the loop as
I thought, and we don't need another.
What we do need is some more work on nearby comments. I'll
see about that and push it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erik Rijkers | 2022-11-22 18:47:26 | Re: New docs chapter on Transaction Management and related changes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-11-22 18:27:54 | Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway |